Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Fri Dec 30, 2016 10:46 am  

madasmcmadammcmad2 wrote:

Surely the fans need to know WHY the RFL backed BID was rejected by the attention seeker Pettit?

He looks like what he is,an attention seeking c*ckplank.

IMO.

Sure I read somewhere the reason was because the deal wasn't good enough for the creditors? Although it may have been in one of those "we're making it up to fill column space" articles.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Fri Dec 30, 2016 10:51 am  

That's about the only basis it could be turned down, isn't it?

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Fri Dec 30, 2016 10:52 am  

Bullseye wrote:

http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/sport/sportbulls/14994285.Wage_doubts_for_Bradford_Bulls_as_survival_talks_go_on/

I'm thinking I could be a part time "journalist" for the T&A if all you have to do is type up what you read on forums and twitter and add "...we understand"

This entire episode is just a farce.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Fri Dec 30, 2016 10:54 am  

HamsterChops wrote:

Sure I read somewhere the reason was because the deal wasn't good enough for the creditors? Although it may have been in one of those "we're making it up to fill column space" articles.

I think it was more a case of it's the only explanation that makes sense. There's still too much vagueness about the whole affair. We only know, or rather can be reasonably confident, that Chalmers bid was rejected. We don't know for definite that Chalmers bid was in fact the one that was referred to as the 'sole remaining bid' last week. We only have a few people professing to be in the know to go by.

What I don't understand is how this Leo Group can supposedly have put in a fresh bid yesterday when the official deadline for receiving bids has long since passed?
What is the point of an Administrator stating a deadline for bids if that deadline doesn't infact apply?

The whole process just seems a bit of a mess to me.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Fri Dec 30, 2016 10:57 am  

HamsterChops wrote:

Sure I read somewhere the reason was because the deal wasn't good enough for the creditors? Although it may have been in one of those "we're making it up to fill column space" articles.

Creditors in the plural or one particular one I wonder? The longer it goes on it does seems Mr Pettit has MGs best interests at heart

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Fri Dec 30, 2016 10:57 am  

Bullmans Parade wrote:

I think it was more a case of it's the only explanation that makes sense. There's still too much vagueness about the whole affair. We only know, or rather can be reasonably confident, that Chalmers bid was rejected. We don't know for definite that Chalmers bid was in fact the one that was referred to as the 'sole remaining bid' last week. We only have a few people professing to be in the know to go by.

What I don't understand is how this Leo Group can supposedly have put in a fresh bid yesterday when the official deadline for receiving bids has long since passed?
What is the point of an Administrator stating a deadline for bids if that deadline doesn't infact apply?

The whole process just seems a bit of a mess to me.

I suppose there's an argument to say that if the deadline passes, and then all the offers on the table are rubbish and are rejected, then if someone comes in afterwards it's better to accept a fresh bid after the deadline than it is to just liquidate.

But it's pure speculation on my part. As you rightly say, the actual cold hard facts just don't seem available to anyone barring the administrator and the RFL.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Fri Dec 30, 2016 10:58 am  

Can someone please run Marc Green down. They he can't knock back another bid

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Fri Dec 30, 2016 10:59 am  

[quote="bowlingboy"]

didn't we have a ban on signing players or was that the time before?

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Fri Dec 30, 2016 11:00 am  

Don't expect to hear anything on @OfficialBullsRL until late afternoon. Hearing talks currently going "okay" ...

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Fri Dec 30, 2016 11:04 am  

Bullmans Parade wrote:

I think it was more a case of it's the only explanation that makes sense. There's still too much vagueness about the whole affair . We only know, or rather can be reasonably confident, that Chalmers bid was rejected. We don't know for definite that Chalmers bid was in fact the one that was referred to as the 'sole remaining bid' last week. We only have a few people professing to be in the know to go by.

What I don't understand is how this Leo Group can supposedly have put in a fresh bid yesterday when the official deadline for receiving bids has long since passed?
What is the point of an Administrator stating a deadline for bids if that deadline doesn't infact apply?

The whole process just seems a bit of a mess to me.

From what I understand from cryptic Frank the Leo group have been his horse from the get go. So I'm at a loss to explain why it's been reported as a new bid.